The concern about possession of weapons goes back to the period between the world wars and has been a continuous concern since the early 1950s. After World War II The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was negotiated. “The NPT prohibited additional states who did not have already nuclear weapons from acquiring them and required current possessors from aiding in the in the spread…made them promise to reduce and eliminate their own.” (Snow, 2008:189) Throughout history, some states have felt the need to possess weapons for protecting themselves while others seek to show their power, for example the U.S.A and the USSR during the Cold War. For decades, power and security have been the major issues, but through time, the economy has become increasingly important in the agenda of states. The aim of this paper is to explain two major international relations theories, realism and liberalism, and how these theories try to argue for the need and possession of nuclear weapons in the contemporary era. Realists have four main arguments: the main actors, in the international system, are sovereign states; the international system is in a state of anarchy; states must be concerned with their own security; and states are rational unified actors. (Viotti, 1999:188) Realism based its arguments on the Cold War, during this time, security and power were the most important concerns for the states, mainly for the United States and the USSR. Due to the history of this theory, it is not a surprise that some realists support the idea of the states possessing nuclear weapons to balance power and protect themselves, in case they feel threatened. The realist Kenneth Waltz, states that “we should expect war to become less likely when weaponry exist to make conquest more difficult, to discourage preemptive and preventive war, and to make coercive threat less credible…nuclear deterrence and nuclear defense improve the prospects for peace” (Waltz, 2008:260)...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...background paragraph (with info on Lib/Realism), then however many paragraphs you need to cover each of your points, and then a final conclusion)
The theories that this essay will look at are realism and liberalism. These two theories are notorious for their contrary nature in regards to their main ideologies in relation to politics, specifically the role of the state, power and human nature.
Realism is a theory based on the importance of the state being the only actor in the political arena and where conflict is the dominant theme. They would argue that humans can only act according to their nature, which is prone to violence. Liberalism is in essence is the view that states should interact with one another through negotiations and peace treaties with conflict being the absolute final resort. They would argue that states have many options and should not resort to conflict as a solution. A good way of illustrating the two is by looking at a school; the children there can take part in many activities that are not only fun, but also mutually beneficial for everyone. Or they can be the school bully and resort to conflict to get what they want. Therefore opportunities are there for both good and bad things to happen, but it is up to the children, or the political actors, to decide what they want to do.
In accordance with realism, the state is in essence a reflection of the population and...

...﻿In order to effectively analyse and study the intricate web of action and interaction that makes up international relations, scholars have devised theories of interaction. Sometimes called lenses, they are created to give a certain perspective from which to review the international sphere. Since the development of the first chair of International Relations (IR) in 1919, two theories have prevailed over the rest, namely Realism and Liberalism. While designed with a uniform purpose, the values and concepts prevalent in the two theories are starkly contrasting. Yet each of the theories is effective even in the contemporary setting, as can be demonstrated when rationalising the current Ukrainian crisis.
Realism
Central to all analysis in Realism is the concept of power. All interactions in the international system are a balance of relative power, with those with having greater power determining outcomes according to their own interests.1 Hans J. Morgenthau worded this assumption well:
“International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Statesmen and peoples may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity, or power itself. They may define their goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, economic, or social ideal. They may hope that this ideal will materialize through its own inner force, through divine...

...﻿Instr. Harding
IRLS210
Mar 31, 2013
Liberalismvs. Realism: “Why can’t we all just get along?”
One of the biggest questions posed in regards to world politics is why can world peace never be an attainable goal? Many theorists assume that the reason this goal cannot be reached is because of opposing views on how people see the world. There are many theories and political stances such as Constructivism and Marxism, but the two most influential political beliefs in the international system come from the philosophies of Liberalism and Realism. Liberalists see the world’s problems totally different than realists; liberalists tend to always look at the world with an optimistic approach, while realists’ views are ever the pessimists. The answer to world peace is through plurality, not solidarity, which is the reason why liberalism has become the most socially acceptable philosophies to date. Liberalism conveys the message that all men are created equal and that peace is indeed more powerful than war. Liberalism gives preference to an open society, based on plurality and democratic state rule, with ultimate condition of human rights protection. This research paper stands to prove that the world will better benefit from cooperation and peace, than from competition and war.
International Relations is defined as the study of the relations of states...

...Kayla Ferry
Political Science 150
Dr. Byron
October 5, 2010
1) Neo-realism, also known as structural realism see international politics as a power struggle between states. Conflicts between states and security competition are due to a lack of “an overarching authority above states and the relative distribution of power in the international system” (Dunne 98). Scholar Kenneth Waltz defined the structure of the international system in three elements: organizing principle, differentiation of units, and distribution of capabilities. To structural realists the distribution of capabilities gives important insight to grasping international outcomes, and the relative distribution of power in the international system is the strategic variable to understanding such outcomes. Structural realists argue that the number of great powers that exists concludes the structure of the international system. Waltz describes the structure as the “ordering principle of the international system, which is anarchy and the distribution capabilities across units, which are states” (Dunne 127). Neo-realists also believe the structure of the international system shapes all foreign policy choices and see power as the collective competences of the states. In other words the more power a state has in the international system the more influence they have on world affairs. However the flaw that accompanies neo-realism, is the increase of the application of...

...International Politics Gerard Chretien Professor: Jennifer Dwyer May 2, 2001
The realist perspective on international political economy can be seen in the United States international trade policy with China. The United States being an established world power seeks to further enhance its international role by engaging in trade with another nation, that being China, this reflects the realist main idea that the state occupies center stage in global political affairs.
The United States willingness to engage in the world market signals the idea of self national interest that remind many of the policy followed by European states during the Monarch era. The idea is to maximize your own agenda, at the same token minimize your states possible loss through risky policy engagement. The realist view reflects many of today's policy regarding international trade with China.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have the liberals who soundly believe that the state should have a very limited impact in the international political economic arena. They feel that the states interest and their goals change along with the context of the I.P.E. situation. The liberal perspective also offers the idea of cooperation among negotiating states that oppose the realist view that cooperation has an underlining meaning behind it.
The realists' concepts and views ultimately render a more significant portrayal of U.S.-China international trade in...

...﻿To what extent, and in which aspects, are Realism and Liberalism similar and different from each other?
Introduction
Realism and Liberalism are the two most prevalent ideologies in practicing and analyzing International Relations in the last two centuries. They are playing important roles in the states. They will directly affect the decision making of the governments and bring effects to the peace relations among countries. Realist mainly put a focus on state, power and national security. It was especially quite dominant in the first phase of the Cold War. On the other hand, Liberalism pays attention to people’s freedom and rights. It rose up after the World War II also the end of Cold War. From my point of view, to a large extent Realism and Liberalism are different from each other. They are quite opposite in theory. The differences between Realism and Liberalism outweigh the similarities. In this essay, I would elaborate these two ideologies in different aspects to talk about.
Similarities between Realism and Liberalism
Anarchy nature
Firstly, for the similarities, both Realists and Liberals believe in anarchy nature of international system that it is leaderless in the world system. ‘The major theories of international relations embrace the view that the international system is anarchic’ (Adem 2002: 19). Both admit...

...Term 1 - Essay
Does liberalism provide a viable alternative to realism as a theory of
international relations?
Term 1 - Essay
Martin Rowse
Theories are established or evolved as a way of explaining a complex and often opaque subject in a
clear and useful way - when they resonate they become tools to explain and explore subjects.
Within this essay I will look to set a juxtaposition between the theories of realism andliberalism to
examine whether liberalism provides a viable alternative to realism when looking to understand
international relations.
I will argue that both realism and liberalism are useful theories when considering international
relations, and in fact having the two opposing views adds to the discussion. Bayliss and Smith
describe these two theories as Realism being the “‘natural’ party of government and Liberalism (as)
the leader of the opposition.”1 I will argue that this analogy rather underplays the importance,
relevance and usefulness of liberalism in our globalised world.
However I will also consider whether Joseph Nye’s view of Soft, Hard and Smart power is now a
more useful tool for strategic appreciation and whether the latter is a replacement for, or a
compliment to, realism and liberalism.
International Relations and Theories
Before...

...﻿International Relations
3/9/2014
Realism and LiberalismRealism and Liberalism are two major and dominant theories in global politics. They both have contrasting ideas when dealing with how states should relate to each other.
Realism is a conservative and pessimistic theory which states predicts and will act on their national interest regardless of morals. This belief results from people who are selfish and competitive. Realism is a perspective that is dominated by cynicism. Realists place each state in the position of closely observing the actions of their neighbors to resolve problems effectively without regarding moral concerns. Realists only want to maintain their own security. They always want enough power so they can be strong enough to withstand attacks. They believe that the international system is inherently anarchical and cannot really be made peaceful except through power. Realists also do not believe in democratization. Realists also believe that countries will pursue power regardless of being democratic. They believe countries will fight for their interests even if they and their opponents are both democracies. Realists claim that only powerful states are true and key actors in international politics.
Liberalism is progressive and optimistic. They emphasize that the broad ties among states have both made it difficult to define national interest...